Equality is a logical impossibility

[zarus tathra]

Whenever "equality" is pursued as an idea, those qualities which make people unequal are denigrated. Under such a regime, those who possess those qualities necessarily are "worse" than those people who don't have those qualities, thus creating a ranking system. It is an inverted ranking system, to be sure, but it is still a ranking system.

The only way that I can think of to actually create equality is to abolish ranking systems, but again, this would make the people with ranking systems worse than people without them, just creating a ranking system.

Respect for individual rights, disbelief in established norms regarding rank and privilege, and all sorts of other ideas commonly associated with egalitarianism and democracy are tenable, but egalitarianism itself is not.

[Atheon]

Equality doesn't mean equality of capability, but equality of opportunity, rights, and treatment under the law.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Equality doesn't mean equality of capability, but equality of opportunity, rights, and treatment under the law.

Don't bother Atheion. Zarus is beyond understanding the actual logic of us mere mortals up in his ivory tower.  [-X

[zarus tathra]

Equality doesn't mean equality of capability, but equality of opportunity, rights, and treatment under the law.

Fine. Equal treatment given equal behavior. That makes sense. Very few people understand "equality" in that way, even implicitly. This includes people who pontificate about "equal opportunity."

[FrankDK]

>  Very few people understand "equality" in that way, even implicitly. This includes people who pontificate about "equal opportunity."

Very few people understand much about our government.  Christine O'Donnell didn't know that separation of church and state is incorporated into the First Amendment.  Sara Palin doesn't know what the Vice President does, or that Paul Revere rode to warn the colonists, or much of anything, for that matter.  The large majority of Americans don't know what "freedom of speech," as guaranteed by the Constitution means.

Equality of opportunity means that your chances of success depend on your abilities, not on who you know or who your father is.  It is an ideal.  In a real system, of course there will be biases, but we should strive to eliminate them.  This is not just for the good of the individual, but for the good of the society.  Bias against some people means that talents aren't being used to their fullest, which hurts the society as a whole.

If you mean equality of two people is a logical impossibility, that's correct.  No two people are identical, even identical twins.  Everyone knows that.

You should probably not become a contestant on the program, "Are you Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?"  Most fifth-graders know what equality under the law means.  I guess they forget as they get older.

Frank

[zarus tathra]

You should probably not become a contestant on the program, "Are you Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?" Most fifth-graders know what equality under the law means. I guess they forget as they get older.

I was talking about equality in the abstract, you enormous faggot. You're the one who brought up "equality under the law" as the central point of discussion, which is trivially simple to discuss and therefore too tedious to be worth talking about.

[FrankDK]

> I was talking about equality in the abstract,

Equality in the abstract means two things are equal, that is, identical.  Equality as expressed in the US, means equality under the law.

> you enormous faggot.

So you're not only stupid, but a bigot.  I should have guessed.

> You're the one who brought up "equality under the law" as the central point of discussion,

No, that was someone else.  You're reading skills are deficient, too.

> which is trivially simple to discuss and therefore too tedious to be worth talking about.

No one is more in awe of your intelligence than you are.  What is "trivially simple" to you has been the subject of great debate and countless legal battles in the US.  The whole civil rights movement turned on the question of what equality under the law means.  The doctrine of separate but equal was questioned and eventually overturned.  Today, the notion of equality under the law is the underlying question in same-sex marriage, stop-and-frisk laws, criminalization of drugs, health care, and a host of other issues.

If it's so simple, why don't you tell the world the answer so we can get on about other things?  I'm sure the Supreme Court would love to hear your opinion.

Frank

[zarus tathra]

You're reading skills are deficient, too.

You should probably learn what contractions are before criticizing someone else's reading skills.

Into the trash.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

How's the weather up in the ivory tower zarus? I assume it's kind of hot being you responded to Frank by calling him an enormous faggot. I'm really looking forward to your next thread: How to make friends and influence people.  =D>

[FrankDK]

You should probably learn what contractions are before criticizing someone else's reading skills.

There's a difference, however.  My error was an editing error.  I started with something like, "You're not going to be able to..." and then changed it, missing the need for a change in the spelling.

Your errors are errors in thinking.  You completely missed my point about how important the concept of equality under the law is.  Instead, you focused on one typo and completely ignored what could have been an interesting discussion about equality under the law.

Into the trash.

And you can stay there, for all I care, until you learn to be something other than an illogical, antisocial bigot.

Frank

[Hijiri Byakuren]

What is it with this forum and assholes this month? Seems like we're getting a lot more than the usual load.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.

[Plu]

You attract in kind, basically.

[The Fly]

Not that this is hard to do, but I am confused.. What the hell is Zarus getting at?

If you don't mind me asking, which country are you from? Because I don't know anyone that would think of equality in the terms you do on a political level.

[zarus tathra]

Zarus, you are good at spotting the usual suspects of all the general mess we live in, however for the life of me, I cannot get how you manage to turn them all on their ass and render the whole thing a pile of bullshit.

Please rephrase this in English.

Not that this is hard to do, but I am confused.. What the hell is Zarus getting at?

If you don't mind me asking, which country are you from? Because I don't know anyone that would think of equality in the terms you do on a political level.

Equality is not a valid terminal idea. It is at best an intermediate idea, a "means to an end." If you want a political movement, it has to be about something other than just equality.

[The Fly]

Zarus, you are good at spotting the usual suspects of all the general mess we live in, however for the life of me, I cannot get how you manage to turn them all on their ass and render the whole thing a pile of bullshit.

Please rephrase this in English.

Not that this is hard to do, but I am confused.. What the hell is Zarus getting at?

If you don't mind me asking, which country are you from? Because I don't know anyone that would think of equality in the terms you do on a political level.

Equality is not a valid terminal idea. It is at best an intermediate idea, a "means to an end." If you want a political movement, it has to be about something other than just equality.

You need to brush up on your study of social movement theory, imo.  Your attributing specifications of equality in definite terms to a force that does not generally use language so statically.